1999 Chevrolet Impala vs. 2004 Holden UTE
To start off, 2004 Holden UTE is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1999 Chevrolet Impala. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1999 Chevrolet Impala would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Holden UTE weights approximately 313 kg more than 1999 Chevrolet Impala.
Because 2004 Holden UTE is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2004 Holden UTE. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Chevrolet Impala, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, both vehicles can yield 305 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
1999 Chevrolet Impala | 2004 Holden UTE | |
Make | Chevrolet | Holden |
Model | Impala | UTE |
Year Released | 1999 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3786 cc | 3791 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 204 HP |
Torque | 305 Nm | 305 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1187 kg | 1500 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5090 mm | 5060 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1490 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2950 mm |